June 30, 2014

Mr. John Cymbalsky

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J

1000 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20585

Re: Energy Conservation for Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers [Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–STD–0037]

Dear Mr. Cymbalsky:

The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) continues to be

concerned with the regulatory approach and process followed in the rulemaking for

energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers (ACIM). As we 

expressed at the public meeting on April 14, 2014, in our May 16, 2014, comments on 

the NOPR, and more recently at the June 19th meeting, there are issues in the analyses

and the current direction of this rulemaking that could place a significant burden on both

industry and end-users of commercial ice makers. We reiterate our request that DOE 

publicly release the FREEZE model so that parties may have a meaningful opportunity 

to review and comment on DOE’s analysis. Additionally, we seek specific clarification 

as to why DOE has determined that parties cannot access the model other than through 

limited access under non-disclosure agreements. If copyright concerns exist, we seek 

an explanation as to why release of the model under a Fair Use analysis is not 

appropriate. Furthermore, given the issues raised and results of the very limited access 

to the model at the June 19, 2014, meeting, we believe that stakeholders should be 

given an opportunity to review and comment on any changes that DOE is planning to 

make to its analyses before the rulemaking is finalized. We feel strongly that such 

review is critical to ensure that the final rule results in energy conservation standards

that are economically justified and technologically feasible. 

During the June 19th meeting, the shortcomings of the FREEZE energy model became 

very apparent. Not only was the model unable to run the data for one unit, but even 

when the model was able to run for the second unit, its outputs were materially 

inaccurate. Further, the results when swapping an upgraded compressor did not 

support the DOE’s findings published in the NOPR. The model simulation conducted at 

the meeting predicted that the unit with the upgraded compressor would produce more 

ice and would consume more energy. AHRI submitted actual test data for this unit 

showing modest efficiency savings from upgrading the compressor. This is 
AHRI Letter to DOE – ACIM ECS NOPR

Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0037

June 30, 2014 Page | 2

contradictory to the significant energy savings DOE claimed would be possible in the 

NOPR. DOE’s analysis also failed to take into account operational changes, such as 

different batch times or energy use.

The DOE acknowledged such shortcomings in the analysis during the meeting, and 

requested additional data be supplied to improve the model’s accuracy. However, DOE 

has not publicly provided the information necessary for affected parties to have 

adequate notice and ability to comment on the results of the public meeting. DOE has 

failed to publicly state a timeframe for collecting the data it has requested. The public 

statement issued after the meeting did not indicate to whom the data should be sent. 

Additionally, DOE announced that it would begin the process by sending computer 

model outputs to manufacturers who had previously submitted data and to obtain 

additional information about unit operation to validate the model’s accuracy. Has this 

happened? If interested parties have data that they would like included in the docket, 

what is the process for submitting it? Will they receive results of the outputs, or will that 

information be communicated only to DOE? 

Without the clarity of a defined comment period, or the knowledge of the next steps in 

the process, we feel that DOE is not following its own Process Rule and the notice and 

comment requirements for federal agency rulemaking. Given the results of the limited 

runs of the model at the June 19th meeting, we also believe that there are serious 

concerns about the quality and reproducibility of the information that is not in 

accordance with the applicable Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, 

Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of Information Disseminated to the Public by the 

Department of Energy (the Guidelines). Under the Guidelines, DOE must identify and 

disclose to regulated parties the possible sources of error in the model and how it has 

been or will be modified. Additionally, without public release of the model, DOE cannot 

demonstrate sufficient transparency about the data and methods such that an 

independent reanalysis can be undertaken by a qualified member of the public. If DOE 

had compelling interests that prohibit public access to the model, DOE must identify 

those interests and describe and document the rigorous checks it has undertaken to

ensure reproducibility. 

We recently became aware that some manufacturers have individually contacted DOE 

and been instructed to submit specific data directly to DOE’s consultant by July 3rd. We 

have serious concerns with this request. First, there has been no official announcement 

by DOE. Second, the time frame provided to submit this data is completely 

unreasonable. Not only is this data not readily available, but manufacturers may have to 

acquire components for testing which will take some time. We urge DOE to show more 

transparency in this rulemaking process and to reopen the comment period for a 

reasonable period. The comment period should extend to August 3, 2014 or later.

Additionally, in at least one recent rulemaking, DOE has failed to comply with the 

requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii), that the Department of Justice (DOJ)

competitive impact analysis be published in the Federal Register. In the ACIM NOPR, 

on page 14858, DOE notes this requirement and states that it will address the Attorney 
AHRI Letter to DOE – ACIM ECS NOPR

Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0037

June 30, 2014 Page | 3

General’s determination in the final rule. This is not enough. AHRI urges DOE publish

the DOJ’s determination and analysis immediately, as 60 days has elapsed from the 

date of the NOPR publication.

DOE’s current process is not compliant with the objective of using transparent and 

robust analytical methods producing results that can be explained and reproduced, as 

required by DOE’s Process Rule and the Guidelines. AHRI sincerely hopes that DOE 

will take corrective actions to improve its analyses and provide adequate information for 

meaningful participation in the rulemaking process by affected parties. We stand ready 

to work with DOE to ensure that the final rule results in energy conservation standards 

that are technologically feasible and economically justified. 

Sincerely,

Karim Amrane

Vice President, Regulatory & Research

Tel: 703-600-0307

Email: kamrane@ahrinet.org

Cc: Kathleen Hogan, DOE

Dan Cohen, DOE